Key words "supposed to be" but in reality there's at least as much regulation creation at the behest of corporate lobby as a barrier to entry against competitors. And notice how the median reliability and performance of the big three is worse than in countries where internet access is treated more like a public utility.

But that's basically what they are, they're natural monopolies but are in some ways more heavily regulated as if they were competitive businesses where anti-competition law would be easier to execute. Notice wherever Google Fiber tries to move in how much better service and performance gets while at the same time the local one or two choices step over themselves in outrage.

If the music industry were saying "punish them! turn off their water!" people would probably better understand just exactly how vindictive they're trying to be.

> Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies?

To be fair, you've just replaced a oligopoly with a monopoly.

Openreach is a government-controlled monopoly, but US telecom is heavily regulated too. Both charge what the government lets them.

As you point out, rural support is a lot less if no one can recoupe infrastructure expenses. The UK has 5x the population density of the US.

So...you might be right, but it's not a clear-cut answer from basic principles.

Unfortunately, getting anything done about the oligopolies - or monopolies - doesn't seem to do anything.

It seems what is basically needed is some investment in infrastructure and some legislation to help remove the barriers to entry. But the US moves slowly to do such things unless there is money to be had. I remember some folks in the late 90's or early 2000's that were just getting home phone service, after all - out west in the mountains. Additionally, the lobbyist for these companies have more money than God. (debatable, but you get the picture). Normal folks making 25,000 a year can't compete with that - their yearly salaries are a drop in the Lobby's bucket.

"America is supopsed to be about free markets and open choice" And technically, it still is, they say, so long as you can afford to do provide all of the infrastructure and get through all the red tape.

It is the same model in all of the EU. Some countries do it very well such as France. Other, such as Germany, not great, but better that the USA "open markets" solution. For proof, compare the price of Internet access in Paris and New York.

Exactly. I can get Comcast up to I think 200mbit now (I have 100) or ATT DSL which would require paying for a phone line + the service which would cost the same as Comcast and run at 768k. This is in Silicon Valley. My apartment building doesn't give me any other options (and Comcast is the only "official" one, but ATT claims they can offer me service...never tried).

It can be an option if you have good enough coverage in your area and you don't use much data (i.e., no streaming or system updates). Typically unless you have some grandfathered in plan, you'll either pay per additional chunk of data (I think Verizon charges $10/GB) or be heavily throttled.